SP and FS replaced by Technical and Artistic programs?

Mathman said:

Yes, everyone agrees with that, including Alexander Lakernik and the ISU. The "artistic" program would feature jumps and the "technical" program would have artistic expectations. It is just a question of whether an adequate judging scheme can be developed to reward a broader and more creative variety of approaches to the desired symbiosis.

Click to expand...

And please, more reward for technical elements that are NOT jumps...

sheetz said:

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around the men but I believe it's the women's discipline that the ISU is most concerned about. The way it looks now they are facing years of ladies dominance by Russia with maybe the occasional medal by others like Kihira/Tursenbaeva/Liu. But maybe if they create an "artistic" medal event others would have a chance, especially if they disallow quads for the ladies. Has Caro officially retired? She could probably medal with a clean skate and a 3-2.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong from inexperience, but I can't help but doubt that it is dominance by the Russian girls they are looking askance at so much as dominance by the Russian girls.

sheetz said:

Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around the men but I believe it's the women's discipline that the ISU is most concerned about.

Click to expand...

We will have to wait and see how it all plays out for the next generation of senior ladies. (I do, though, kind of agree with TontoK that the ISU itself is not overly worried about what nationality it's world champions are. Fans, yes, but fans don't call the shots.)

However, I believe that with men's skating the crisis has already been exposed. Whoever does the most quads wins. When each quad gives you an automatic 10 points, you would be a fool not to go out there and do as many as you can, forget anything else.

What's so bad about that? What's so bad about that is that the judges can then pile on GOEs pretty much regardless of quality (except for an obvious mistake) because -- hey, it's a quad, of course you deserve 3 or 4 extra points, you just did a quad! Now for the PCSs. Obviously you should get automatic high scores in musical interpretation -- you just did 3 quads, for crying out loud, what can be more musical that that?

I think the danger to the ISU is that this skews the the sport to spotlight just one aspect of of its appeal, and then they are faced with the temptation to cover up that fact by giving out undeserved component scores.

I, for one, am quite curious to see what Lakernik and crew think they can come up with to address these questions.

TallyT said:

And please, more reward for technical elements that are NOT jumps...

Click to expand...

To me, that is the biggest problem that the new proposal faces. How do you accomplish that in a sporting context?

A basic upright spin gives you 1.00 points. I suppose this is because any competitive skater can do it. If you perform the world's most wonderful basic upright spin, you can earn an extra 0.5 points with +5 GOE.

Yet back in the day, many programs ended with a really fast well-centered basic upright spin, as the climax to the performance. The crowd went wild! Now that's figure skating!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcO2yqtwb8w&t=2m18s

The IJS tried to address this issue by "levels." Just like an extra revolution on a jump raised the base value, so an extra change of edge or change of position raised the level of a spin. Very sports-like. But the result was a bunch of funny-looking contortions that detracted from, rather than enhanced, the esthetic and performance aspects of the program.

Somehow the proponents of the "artistic program" concept have to work this out to give adequate recognition for the value that an element adds to the total concept of the program. How? I dunno.

Figure skating is still considered a girls sport in most of the world and it is widely believed that the fall of its popularity in certain geographic regions is largely attributable to the lack of top female skaters from those areas. I believe that the ISU would like to develop ladies stars in the various parts of the globe where skating has been in decline, especially Europe, as it is still primarily a Eurocentric organization.

What if - hear me out - instead of overhauling the whole system, the judges actually judged components and GOEs based on the rule book and criteria??

Good one, I know.

How does changing the system help when the real problem are the judges? Will they also be removed to make way for a new crop with the new system? Because if not it will just be more of the same.

One thing I just thought of: so far the entire conversation here and elsewhere has revolved around singles events. How will these proposals impact Pairs? What comparable changes will be made to Ice Dance to ensure that it's not perceived as lagging behind the rest of the field, old-fashioned and out of touch?

TallyT said:

Again, err... have you seen some of those little elderly fans in Japan? Age definitely doesn't wither or weary their personal emotions one little bit

Click to expand...

Oh lordy no. I'm 'of a certain age' and the day I stop feeling personal emotions about skaters will be the day I stop watching figure skating for good.

Harriet said:

One thing I just thought of: so far the entire conversation here and elsewhere has revolved around singles events. How will these proposals impact Pairs? What comparable changes will be made to Ice Dance to ensure that it's not perceived as lagging behind the rest of the field, old-fashioned and out of touch?

Click to expand...

Good point.

For pairs, I think the principle would be the same as with singles -- just there would be more different kinds of elements in pairs than singles, as there are now.

Assuming the plan is two 3.5-minute programs, one packed with technical content and one with fewer elements and/or more emphasis on quality and choreographic effectiveness than difficulty, the breakdown could look something like this (just spitballing here):

Technical Program:
(10 elements in 3 1/2 minutes)
1 twist lift
2 standard lifts from different groups
1 side-by-side jump combination or sequence
1 throw jump
1 pair spin
1 side-by-side spin
1 death spiral
1 leveled step sequence
1 additional element of the team's choice, chosen from any of the above (if side-by-side jumps, then a solo jump not another combo/sequence)

Judged pretty much like the present freeskate, but with lower factors on the PCS.

Artistic Program:
(fewer elements for TES points, possibly emphasis on technical skills not in the Scale of Values along with PCS at a higher factor, and more flexibility about what those elements might be)
Total of 5-7 elements -- maybe some required slots to ensure some variety of skills, e.g.,
1 lift, which may be a twist lift
1 set of solo jumps or throw jump
1 pair spin or side-by-side spin
1 death spiral
1-3 free choice element(s) from the pairs scale of values

If the point is to allow more time for choreography and creativity between elements, then there's probably no need to include a choreo sequence -- those kinds of skills should be spread out through the whole program -- if they happen to be strung together in a sequence that fills the whole ice between any scored elements that's fine, but they would still only be scored as part of the PCS.

It's also possible that the standard pair elements would not be leveled but treated more like "choreo" elements, so there would be a basic score just for including an element, regardless of difficulty, and then the GOE would contribute more to its value than that base score.

It could also be possible to allow adagio moves that are currently illegal in standard pairs competition and that would still have no place in the technical program. E.g., detroiters, headbangers, and other spin/lift combinations; carry lifts with no rotation at all. Either treat them as choreo elements (no levels or requirements) or don't add them to the scale of values at all and just treat them as transitional moves, same as dance-type lifts etc. are treated now.

gkelly said:

It could also be possible to allow adagio moves that are currently illegal in standard pairs competition and that would still have no place in the technical program. E.g., detroiters, headbangers, and other spin/lift combinations; carry lifts with no rotation at all. Either treat them as choreo elements (no levels or requirements) or don't add them to the scale of values at all and just treat the as transitional moves, same as dance-type lifts etc. are treated now.

Click to expand...

you forgot the iron lotus

For ice dance, I think there could be less change from the current competition format.

Maybe just keep the program breakdown as is but lower the PCS factor for the Rhythm Dance and raise it for the free dance.

Or (again, I'm just making this up),

If the Technical Rhythm Dance is to become longer to 3.5 minutes, maybe the required elements could be:
1 full pattern of that year's chosen set-pattern dance (or 2 patterns for half-rink patterns like the rhumba)
1 no-touching step sequence
1 full-rink step sequence in hold
1 set of twizzles (or just require two consecutive twizzles in the no-touch sequence)
2 lifts
1 dance spin

For the Artistic Free Dance, maybe all elements should be "choreo" for a set base value only regardless of difficulty, with GOE contributing more plus or minus to their value.

They could also ease up on the rules against illegal elements. Maybe allow 1 overhead lift or death spiral (choreo only), unlimited small lifts, unlimited jumps of less than 2 revolutions either simultaneous or separate, no illegal holds or lift positions (I don't think you'd get lots of "pornographic" upside-down split lifts if earning levels isn't a consideration), hydroblading-type moves including with hand or other body part touching the ice, and sliding and maybe lying or kneeling on the ice would be allowed but there might be restrictions on how much time can be spent without blades on ice, or count these kinds of moves purely as transitions not even choreo elements so there's no real incentive to overdo them.

The focus would be on using skating skills and skating-based partnering moves to interpret music and convey some kind of story or theme. Non-skating moves and a few allowed singles- or pair-type freeskating moves could be used as choreographic highlights without being penalized but the latter wouldn't be rewarded for difficulty either.

And keep the restrictions on separations and the requirement for audible rhythm in the music to maintain the difference between dance and pairs.

SkateSkates said:

What if - hear me out - instead of overhauling the whole system, the judges actually judged components and GOEs based on the rule book and criteria?

Click to expand...

It seems possible that a new system might help the judges here. It just seems difficult for a judge not to automatically raise GOEs and PCSs when skaters raise the technical difficulty. It was the same with 6.0 scoring. Raise the tech content, and the second mark was sure to follow.

There seems to be some sort of reasoning along these lines: If you only do triples then you can concentrate on PCSs and get 9s. But if you do quads, that requires longer preparation and greater expenditure of energy, so of course you can't execute your choreography etc. as well. So it is only fair to give the quadster 9s in PCSs, too, because that is what he could have earned if he had watered down the tech. If we don't hold up the PCSs, that would be punishing the skater for trying to improve his technical arsenal.

It seems possible that having two different programs, each with it's own focus, might give the judges a little more breathing room. For instance, I would imagine that for the artistic program it would be easier for the judges to distinguish between the five components, whereas in the technical program they will probably just do as they do now: give the same score 5 times.

gkelly said:

For ice dance...

Click to expand...

Mathman said:

It seems possible that a new system might help the judges here. It just seems impossible for a judge not to automatically raise GOEs and PCSs when skaters raise the technical difficulty. It was the same with 6.0 scoring. Raise the tech content, and the second mark was sure to follow.

There seems to be some sort of reasoning along these lines: If you only do triples then you can concentrate on PCSs and get 9s. But if you do quads, that requires longer preparation and greater expenditure of energy, so of course you can't execute your choreography etc. as well. So it is only fair to give the quadster 9s in PCSs, too, because that is what he could have earned if he had watered down the tech. If we don't hold up the PCSs, that would be punishing the skater for trying to improve his technical arsenal.

Click to expand...

Yet Boyang and Samarin never got too high PCS while Kolyada with very weak tech content - is constantly getting it. Maybe not all that simple as you want to present it and something works a it should even in modern "corrupted" system?

It seems possible that having two different programs, each with it's own focus, might give the judges a little more breathing room. For instance, I would imagine that for the artistic program it would be easier for the judges to distinguish between the five components, whereas in the technical program they will probably just do as they do now: give the same score 5 times.

Click to expand...

Overhauling the whole system in attempt to hide and mask current judges inefficiency (when they are not able to work properly already quite decent and sophisticated system) instead of trying to fix just that - it looks to me just like cutting the arm when you just broke the finger

Mathman said:

It seems possible that a new system might help the judges here. It just seems impossible for a judge not to automatically raise GOEs and PCSs when skaters raise the technical difficulty. It was the same with 6.0 scoring. Raise the tech content, and the second mark was sure to follow.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you pointed this out. For as long as I've been a fan, the best technicians have been in the hunt for medals, and whoever skates best among them generally wins the gold medal. I'm having a really hard time thinking of an "artist" succeeding on a grand scale without having the jumps, too.

Even my favorite male artists of all time - John Curry and Toller Cranston - had the jump arsenal expected of the best men in their era. They're weren't technical slouches by any stretch.

This athlete vs artist thing isn't something that just came up.

SkateSkates said:

What if - hear me out - instead of overhauling the whole system, the judges actually judged components and GOEs based on the rule book and criteria??

Good one, I know.

How does changing the system help when the real problem are the judges? Will they also be removed to make way for a new crop with the new system? Because if not it will just be more of the same.

Click to expand...

I kinda wish they would throw out the rule book on GOE. All those bullet points? It's ridiculous.

I was watching an international diving competition recently. The diver would perform, the analyst would comment on the quality and say something like, "that should score in the 7.0 to 7.5 range." And, guess what, that's exactly where the scores would be.

I can't believe that an international panel can't look at a 3F and say, "that's worth a 3", and there not be some sort of consistency among their marks.

Also worth noting that a hard dive didn't get good scores unless it was really well performed. They didn't throw the 9.0's just because the dive was hard.

Elucidus said:

Yet Boyang and Samarin never got too high PCS while Kolyada with very weak tech content - is constantly getting it. Maybe not all that simple ...

Click to expand...

True, true. It is not simple at all.

That is why I am not offering an opinion beyond a weak, "Maybe this, maybe that", until we see an actual proposal from the ISU.

Mathman said:

However this turns out, I do think that the ISU is not satisfied with how the PCS are determined in the current system. To go back to our favorite example, at the 2019 Worlds short program Nathan Chen scored higher than Jason Brown in 4 of the 5 program components and overall, including a clean sweep of the “artistic” components, Composition, Performance and Interpretation of Music.

What do we make of this? It can’t be national bias or ISU politicking – the skaters are both American. It can’t be reputation – it is Jason, not Nathan, who has a reputation as the more accomplished “second mark” skater. Skate order? Hanyu beat them both on PCSs, skating earlier, and with a big whopping mistake.

Maybe they gave Nathan higher PCS than deserved because he did quads – after all, if you do quads that takes away from concentrating on the performance, so (?) you should get extra PCSs to make up for it? This seems contrary to the principle of scoring the PCS independently of the TES.

Click to expand...

Get your math right, Mathman. Your more accomplished "second mark" skater may be a false impression. Nathan has higher PCS than Jason at either Jr or Sr, national or international competitions.

Jr SP PCS at US nationals: Jason 28.90, Nathan 32.57
Jr FS PCS at US nationals: Jason 63.14, Nathan 68.94

Jr SP PCS at ISU: Jason 33.44, Nathan 37.11
Jr FS PCS at ISU: Jason 73.06, Nathan 73.56

Sr SP PCS at US nationals: Jason 47.76, Nathan 48.37
Sr FS PCS at US nationals: Jason 93.34, Nathan 98.50

Sr SP PCS at ISU: Jason 46.15, Nathan 47.26
Sr FS PCS at ISU: Jason 92.08, Nathan 94.78

no way!

Tahuu said:

Get your math right, Mathman. Your more accomplished "second mark" skater may be a false impression. Nathan has higher PCS than Jason at either Jr or Sr, national or international competitions.

Click to expand...

Well, that was kind of my point. Nathan Chen gets higher PCSs than Jason Brown. Yet if you ask people, name a U.S.men's skater who has a "reputation as an accomplished second mark skater," the great majority of fans and also of skating insiders would say, "Why, Jason Brown is the very poster child of an accomplished second mark skater."

If you ask people, "who does the most quads?" they would say, Nathan Chen.

Yet it is the quadster, not the "artist," who gets the higher PCSs. That's just how the IJS works. I think that Lakernik's proposal is an attempt to review this situation.

Mathman said:

Well, that was kind of my point. Nathan Chen gets higher PCSs than Jason Brown. Yet if you ask people, name a U.S.men's skater who has a "reputation as an accomplished second mark skater," the great majority of fans and also of skating insiders would say, "Why, Jason Brown is the very poster child of an accomplished second mark skater."

If you ask people, "who does the most quads?" they would say, Nathan Chen.

Yet it is the quadster, not the "artist," who gets the higher PCSs. That's just how the IJS works. I think that Lakernik's proposal is an attempt to review this situation.

Click to expand...

I don’t think last season was a good gauge of where Jason’s PCS should be - and hopefully will be - going forward. His FS was not a great program for him, he never once skated it clean, and in fact he frequently (as at Worlds) fell - all of which affects PCS. I would say he was probably under marked in the SP at Worlds but didn’t deserve to be marked higher in the FS bc it was such a mess.

Overall, I think that PCS was pretty reasonable / realistic at the beginning of the season, but it got more and more inflated for certain skaters as the season went on, to the point that it was ridiculous by WTT. And the beneficiaries of that higher PCS were those who jumped the most - and the “hardest” - quads.

I don’t think a new system is necessary. IMO the problem could easily be solved in the current one by training judges better and giving them stricter guidelines. Until that happens, it doesn’t really matter what system is used.